[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100226184001.GJ6733@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:40:01 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>
Cc: "'Simon Horman'" <horms@...ge.net.au>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] cnic: Fix panic in
cnic_iscsi_nl_msg_recv() when device is down.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:01:59PM -0800, Michael Chan wrote:
> Simon Horman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 04:42:06PM -0800, Michael Chan wrote:
> > > Some data structures are freed when the device is down and it will
> > > crash if an ISCSI netlink message is received. Add RCU protection
> > > to prevent this. In the shutdown path, ulp_ops[CNIC_ULP_L4] is
> > > assigned NULL and rcu_synchronized before freeing the data
> > > structures.
> >
> > Is rcu_assign_pointer() unnecessary in cnic_cm_open()?
> > It doesn't seem to be followed by rcu_synchronized() and the pointer
> > doesn't seem to be accessible anywhere else at that time.
>
> We assign a valid pointer in cnic_cm_open() so that it can be used
> during run-time (in service_kcqes() for example). During shutdown in
> cnic_stop_hw(), we assign NULL followed by rcu_synchronize().
So you are saying that when the pointer is assigned in cnic_cm_open(),
there cannot possibly be any concurrent reading threads?
Use of an explicit rcu_assign_pointer() would be better if so.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists